Crimeo wrote: Since your visual senses are obviously the same either way (identical, both zero), and since the invisibility spell explicitly says it does not dampen sound (thus hearing is identical as well), there is no valid explanation for why that would be. Because, the system is an abstract, gamist intepretation of a fantasy reality, and the stealth system is infamously poorly implemented. Unfortunately the combination of listen and spot means there are some silly situations that arise. For example, a liberal interpretation of the term 'invisibility' means you cannot hear someone talking on the other side of a curtain 5ft away from you without a DC 20 perception check, and pinpointing their square is almost impossible. Clearly unintentional.
So, while I agree with you that the rules system is wonky, you are asking in the rules forum, and so should expect to be told what you can do in accordance with the rules - which, as you admit, forbids your intended actions. You can't remain hidden will being observed with any senses - and once you make an attack you are considered observed if you do not use the sniping rules. If your actions rely on what is effectively a house-rule, you should expect a rules forum to tell you it isn't possible. Certainly in PFS this would not fly.
From a RAI perspective what you are doing (expecting to be able to fire a bow at someone without giving away even the direct of your location) is suspect at best anyway as evidenced by the hostile reaction in-thread. I would expect an NPC who is lit up and then shot at in the dark to move towards the direction of the arrow or to seek cover. All he needs to do is get within 40ft of you and your total concealment is lost.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: The invisibility rules do not apply to the general stealth rules. You do not gain 'invisibility' or any of the associated rules to that spell when in total concealment or otherwise 'not visible'. The spell is entirely distinct and has separate rules, regardless of the commoniusage of the term 'invisible'. Do not conflate the two. I realize this is the case for word for word rules.
I'm saying however that it is silly, illogical, contradictory for a DM to rule this way anyway. The reason is that by making this distinction you are logically necessitating that it is harder to sense an invisible creature than a not-visible creature.
Since your visual senses are obviously the same either way (identical, both zero), and since the invisibility spell explicitly says it does not dampen sound (thus hearing is identical as well), there is no valid explanation for why that would be.
So basically your NPCs are metagaming by gaining extra information about a creature based on the magical nature of their lack of visbility, which the NPCs have no way to know. Even if they did know, they possess no sensory organs or abilities by which to come upon this extra information. So they're still metagaming by looking at the game map to see my character better than their eyes and ears are able to see and hear in otherwise identical circumstances.
(Darkvision or truevision, etc. are exceptions, of course. Consider a vanilla human for sake of argument) We're still in the rules forum. By the rules, Invisibility gives a +40 to Stealth, +20 if the person is moving. This is in addition to anything else the subject of the spell does. So yes, if they use Stealth to move quieter, they get a bonus to it. Because that's what Invisibility says it does. There's no caveat like "+20 to vision-based Stealth checks", it's just +20 to Stealth. A successful Stealth check, while making you no longer visible, does not give you any bonus to Stealth. Yes it's not "realistic". Pathfinder isn't either, and magic tends to violates reality even further. And when the rules and "reality" collide, the rules take precedence.
Quote: a liberal interpretation of the term 'invisibility' means you cannot hear someone talking on the other side of a curtain 5ft away from you without a DC 20 perception check, and pinpointing their square is almost impossible. Clearly unintentional. Not true, if you look at the table on page 563 CR, it lists "speaking" as -20DC modifier So invisibility grants you +20 to pinpoint, speaking -20, then from the perception page, the base DC for this is "hear the details of a conversation" = DC 0, and the distance adds 1/2DC for half of ten feet, which rounds down.
Overall DC of pinpointing = 0 at most. Probably less than 0 since detecting the sound should be a lower base DC that making out conversational details.
I'd not say that's "clearly unintentional".
(edit: the table is bad by not making it clear which lines group together. I think all the lines above "using stealth" are supposed to be "pick the one loudest". If you don't do that yes it gets dumb quickly)
This all might actually motivate me to sit down and rewrite a clearer system homebrew and share it with everyone, so the extended discussion is helpful and productive.
Quote: I would expect an NPC who is lit up and then shot at in the dark to move towards the direction of the arrow or to seek cover. I don't argue any of that, for sure he should do one of those things. The nice thing about it is, if you tag the highest priority target, and he seeks cover, then you've achieved pretty good battlefield control by delaying his input to the fight while you mop up some grunts. They're also likely to move away from him to get out of the light, so it's almost as effective as a wall. Or if charging in, may be running into an ambush (and still may separate the grunts).
Not perfect but a slot 2 spell (to be well out of range of being found) is only competing with fog cloud and the like for battlefield control, it doesn't have to work miracles to be worth consideration.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: The invisibility rules do not apply to the general stealth rules. You do not gain 'invisibility' or any of the associated rules to that spell when in total concealment or otherwise 'not visible'. The spell is entirely distinct and has separate rules, regardless of the commoniusage of the term 'invisible'. Do not conflate the two. I realize this is the case for word for word rules.
I'm saying however that it is silly, illogical, contradictory for a DM to rule this way anyway. The reason is that by making this distinction you are logically necessitating that it is harder to sense an invisible creature than a not-visible creature.
But it is exactly how it work. You are changing the rules to suit you. Fine in a home game, not in the rule forum.
Hiding behind a wall? No bonus even if there is a object that totally block LOS.
Invisible behind a wall? +20 to your stealth check.
So yes, the rules make harder to notice you if invisible even by sound.
Quote: So yes, the rules make harder to notice you if invisible even by sound. Does the rules forum not care about the fact that the invisibility spell's black and white rules say:
"Of course, the subject is not magically silenced"
When I suggested it was contradiictory earlier, I did not mean just in a common sense real life way, I meant within the actual written rules as well. They conflict with themselves if you take them literally only. You're actually breaking rules either way. So why not break a rule and make sense, versus break a rule and not make sense?
Crimeo, your original question was answered was it not?
Clearly no one agrees with your point of view on this thread and you are just banging your head against the wall.
Also, it is news to no one that the rules don't always make logical or mechanical sense. Search the forums for the invisibility rules and you will find countless examples of people finding issue with them. Your outrage isn't news.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: So yes, the rules make harder to notice you if invisible even by sound. Does the rules forum not care about the fact that the invisibility spell's black and white rules say:
"Of course, the subject is not magically silenced"
When I suggested it was contradiictory earlier, I did not mean just in a common sense real life way, I meant within the actual written rules as well. They conflict with themselves if you take them literally only. You're actually breaking rules either way. So why not break a rule and make sense, versus break a rule and not make sense? Sure, that line is relevant. It means that you're only invisible, not silent. Do you not care about the two sentences after that where it says "If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving." Because there are no restrictions on this, it's just a straight bonus to all Stealth checks. Which includes hiding yourself from being seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or otherwise perceived.
Oh, and Miss/Concealment checks are a separate roll AFTER your perception check/Attack Roll anyway.
Monster will do Perc check to find your square - "that arrow came from that square there" - opposed by what action you took while stealthed (or have someone spotting for them) and if they move and try to hit someone with Miss or Concealment (as in Invisibility, Blinded, Displacement or Blur, or some other event), roll separately after attacking to see if his attack actually hit...
They do not make it harder to hit you on the same roll as the initial DC check...
Well, at least this is how we've been doing it at home...
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Sure, that line is relevant. It means that you're only invisible, not silent. Do you not care about the two sentences after that No, I've never been talking about stealth during the whole thread. Assume my character is not even choosing to roll stealth at any point, and that none of the stealth rules or bonuses or penalties are therefore relevant.
I am talking about the non-stealth-related portions of the rules on pages 563-564 core rulebook, the invisibility appendix. Including the non-stealth pinpoint modifier and all of the non-stealth modifiers in the table in that section. Also the part in that section where it says yet again "While they can be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt." As well as multiple other comments that make it clear nothing but visibility is supposed to be affected, such as "A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility."
If following another rule requires you to break the rule that invisibility is vision-based only, then you're still breaking the rules! Alternatively, if you treat non-visibility as invisible, then you're breaking the rules as well in that it doesn't explicitly tell you that, but you're now following the rules that it's vision-based only.
So if no matter what you do, you are following some rules and breaking others, opposite one another, shouldn't you choose the option that at least makes some realistic sense along the way? Because one of the two options does.
Quote: Oh, and Miss/Concealment checks are a separate roll AFTER your perception check/Attack Roll anyway. Yes this is correct, I was not modifying any of the above DCs for that. It's just a coin flip of its own added in.
What rule is it breaking? The spell Invisibility says +40 to Stealth, +20 if they're moving. That's lines 5 and 6 on the table on page 563 (though this one says it's a modification to the perception DC, not to the Stealth check). We can argue a lot about it (does it stack with what invisibility says or is it reiterating the rules, does the fact it says perception DC modifier mean that you get to double stealth, etc.) but you can't argue that it doesn't apply to all perception checks. It's a modifier that applies to all perception checks, not just vision based ones. If you have actual rules text that says different, please cite it.
Of course, this is all irrelevant because your character hasn't been invisible at any point in this discussion, to the best of my knowledge.
Quote: If you have actual rules text that says different, please cite it. I just did. On the very same page: "While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt" I'm not sure how much more plainly you can possibly expect them to tell you that invisibility. only. affects. vision.
There is no room on the table to write that out yet again, and no need to do so since the reader can be quite reasonably expected to remember and apply this information from just three paragraphs ago.
Quote: Of course, this is all irrelevant because your character hasn't been invisible at any point in this discussion, to the best of my knowledge. Applying an in game difference between invisible and non-visible (total concealment) creatures is breaking a game rule. Because doing so necessarily implies that invisibility suppresses things other than vision, yet it has unambiguously told you it does not (in other places as well, including later in this appendix and in the spell text). In addition to breaking a rule in this way, this choice makes no real world sense.
On the other hand, deciding that invisibility rules should apply to total concealment is ALSO breaking a rule, since as you point out, I'm not "invisible" just non-visible, and it does not tell you to equate them explicitly. In addition, this does make real world sense though. So your two choices are:
A) Break a rule, and make realistic sense doing so.
B) Break a rule, and don't make realistic sense doing so.
Which is the better choice?
If the perception modifiers are only for vision and an invisible creature can't be seen, why do the modifiers not just say "impossible"?
What game rule is broken by the rules for invisibility and not being visible (total concealment) being different? Invisibility explicitly grants total concealment, total concealment does not grant invisibility. Hiding in a fog cloud does not mean that nobody can see you if they just walk into the fog cloud. Being invisible doesn't turn off because: the observer moved, someone lit a torch, someone moved into the fog cloud, or someone blew away the smoke. Total concealment might.
Quote: If the perception modifiers are only for vision and an invisible creature can't be seen, why do the modifiers not just say "impossible"? Because you're logicking that backwards. Invisible folks would be impossible to perceive only if invisibility dampened ALL senses, not the other way around. It not saying "DC impossible" is in fact itself further proof that invisibility does not dampen all senses. (In addition to them just having told you that)
The modifiers represent "this is what the DCs are when you take out the benefit of sight. This is how difficult the more difficult (but not impossible) task that remains is when all you have is hearing and touch and smell."
Which is precisely why those same DCs should also logically apply to full concealment, in which you are also robbed of vision, but also still have hearing, touch, and smell. Thus the task is exactly as much more difficult.
Quote: What game rule is broken by the rules for invisibility and not being visible (total concealment) being different? The one that says it only affects vision. It is logically impossible for there to be any functional distinction to a vanilla human observer between the two conditions unless other senses are affected. But it tells you plainly (in multiple places) that other senses are NOT affected. So if you rule a distinction between them, you are directly contradicting the description = breaking rule.
Except that's not what those rules are for. Those rules are for Invisibility and nothing else. That's why the section is titled that. If you think it'd be a good houserule I can flag this thread to be moved there but this is the rules forum, and those are the rules for invisibility, not total concealment.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: What rule is it breaking? The spell Invisibility says +40 to Stealth, +20 if they're moving. That's lines 5 and 6 on the table on page 563 (though this one says it's a modification to the perception DC, not to the Stealth check). It's a general rule, not an absolute one. If your enemy has true seeing, tremor sense, or any of several effects which render your invisibility moot, the modifier goes down the toilet.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Except that's not what those rules are for. Those rules are for Invisibility and nothing else. That's why the section is titled that. If you think it'd be a good houserule I can flag this thread to be moved there but this is the rules forum, and those are the rules for invisibility, not total concealment. Right. It's describing invisibility as only eliminating vision, and not affecting the other senses.
Total concealment is also only affecting vision. This is unambiguously described as well in the total concealment section in the combat chapter. I'm not inferring that, it says it specifically about total concealment in that other part of the book. (total concealment is when you have line of effect but not line of SIGHT i.e. vision)
So both of the sections for the two respective things have told you straight up "Vision gone. Nothing else changed."
But you want to treat them differently anyway for a vanilla human. The ONLY way that's possible is if something other than vision has changed for one of them, but not the other. But since both sections just said that isn't true, you MUST be violating one or the other of the two sections if you treat them differently in that case (vanilla human) anyway.
Uh, Invisibility changes a whole bunch more than total concealment. Total concealment is "If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you." Invisibility is: Invisibility wrote: The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Invisible creature is... Perception
DC Modifier
In combat or speaking –20
Moving at half speed –5
Moving at full speed –10
Running or charging –20
Not moving +20
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
Some distance away +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door) +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall) +15
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an invisible creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Perception checks, scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Perception checks can help.
Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.
Invisibility does not thwart divination spells.
Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible.
Pardon the formatting. Those are not the same thing. As I said, invisibility grants total concealment but total concealment does not grant invisibility. If you think it does, please, show me where in the rules. The actual printed rules, not your interpretation of what they mean. I've already raised several places where it's not true. In darkness (until someone turns on a light), in fog cloud or smoke (until someone moves adjacent or creates a wind), behind a hedgerow (until someone moves around it). Total concealment and invisibility are not identical. Invisibility is strictly superior to total concealment (since it says it gives you total concealment).
Quote: If you think it does, please, show me where in the rules. It's not in the rules. I'm openly breaking the rules in suggesting it be done anyway.
BUT The critical detail here is that you are ALSO breaking the rules if you treat the perception DCs as being different between TC and invisibility for a vanilla human. The only possible way invisibility could be more effective (higher DCs) is if it does something more than TC does. The only thing more it could possibly be doing is dampening other senses (since both of them have already eliminated vision). This directly contradicts the description of invisibility though which says "No, it's only vision." So you're breaking the rule that it only affects vision.
So we are both breaking diifferent rules. if you have to break a rule anyway (you do, because it's written in an internally inconsistent way), why not pick the realistic way while you're at it?
If you are in a area of darkness and your enemy can't see you he need to pinpoint you.
Check DC:
Hear the sound of battle –10 (your character isn't drawing his bow for a surprise attack, he is making a full attack, or even worse, casting the light spell)
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Pinpoint +20
As you want to fire from 180', the Total DC to pinpoint the right square is 28.
Not impossible. Easy for plenty of creatures.
The relevant part of the rules:
PRD wrote: Darkness
Darkvision allows many characters and monsters to see perfectly well without any light at all, but characters with normal or low-light vision can be rendered completely blind by putting out the lights. Torches or lanterns can be blown out by sudden gusts of subterranean wind, magical light sources can be dispelled or countered, or magical traps might create fields of impenetrable darkness.
In many cases, some characters or monsters might be able to see while others are blinded. For purposes of the following points, a blinded creature is one who simply can't see through the surrounding darkness.
Creatures blinded by darkness lose the ability to deal extra damage due to precision (for example, via sneak attack or a duelist's precise strike ability).
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Blinded creatures can't run or charge.
All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction.
A blinded creature loses its Dexterity modifier to AC (if positive) and takes a –2 penalty to AC.
A blinded creature takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, including any with an armor check penalty. A creature blinded by darkness automatically fails any skill check relying on vision.
Creatures blinded by darkness cannot use gaze attacks and are immune to gaze attacks.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
A blinded creature can grope about to find unseen creatures. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action. If an unseen target is in the designated square, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has pinpointed the unseen creature's current location. If the unseen creature moves, its location is once again unknown.
If a blinded creature is struck by an unseen foe, the blinded character pinpoints the location of the creature that struck him (until the unseen creature moves, of course). The only exception is if the unseen creature has a reach greater than 5 feet (in which case the blinded character knows the location of the unseen opponent, but has not pinpointed him) or uses a ranged attack (in which case the blinded character knows the general direction of the foe, but not his location).
A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.
Invisibility has nothing to do with it, as you can see.
Crimeo:
Does your argument boil down to:
If it is a Wolf (It has Invisibility), then it is a Canine (it has Total Concealment).
It is a Canine (it has Total Concealment)
Thus it is a Wolf (it is Invisible).
If so, it is an example of fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Just because it may be (as a side of effect of absurdly high DCs to see you) not possible for your opponent to pass the perception DC which grants you total concealment, this does *NOT* render you Invisible (as per the condition). You don't gain a condition unless something explicitly grants it to you in a permission based ruleset like Pathfinder. While it's very easy for us as humans to make the logical jump of "I can't be seen, therefore I am Invisible", it is not true for much the reason described above. I understand the difficulty since it is, from the human experience, the very definition of the word.
Invisibility *DOES* do more than Total Concealment. It grants you the condition "Invisible". I understand, and can even empathize with, the argument of "What's the difference because sound...", but that argument isn't going to gain any traction in the VERY literal Rules Forum. Emotion and Real-life logic carry no sway here, only what's printed on the page.
So that being said, here are the rules:
If you have total concealment, you CAN make stealth checks, and you can't be attacked directly (only your square).
If you are Invisible, you gain a +20 to stealth checks (+40 if you aren't moving), and as above.
If you don't like them, I totally get it. If your group don't play by them, I completely understand your reasoning for it. But, those are the rules as they are printed.
No my argument does not boil down to that.
My argument is that wolves are basically defined in the rules as "furry gray pointy toothed quadrupeds" and canines are basically defined in the rules as "furry gray pointy toothed quadrupeds"
In terms of invisibility and TC, they both draw all of their physical consequences from the fact that both are total removal of visual information and explicitly not anything else. They essentially have the same exact physical description in the book.
Not even darkvision changes this -- if you have darkvision, then you have a line of sight to a creature in the dark, so it doesn't have total concealment in the first place from you.
Yet then, even though both are described identically, the rules try to assign different rules to them. Which if you follow them, you are implying that they aren't the same thing in situations where they obviously are, physically (such as with a vanilla human without darkvision or any such things).
Thus, it is impossible to follow the rules as written. Either you break the rules that assign different consequences to them, OR you break the rules that describe both of them as loss of vision only (by ruling in a way that makes invisibility harder to detect which has no other explanation).
Whenever it's impossible to follow the rules, IMO you should default to whatever the most realistic second best choice is.
Quote: Invisibility has nothing to do with it, as you can see. Thanks for the extra citation. It still doesn't make it possible to follow all the rules, but it removes a few of the contradictions by redundantly writing out about half of the same rules again (but forgetting the rest). Note that other situations of not seeing, such as standing in fog, are still totally bonkers and would just lead to the same problem again though.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
